Lead levels in fortified wines

Abstract

AIM: The main lead exposure route is the intake of contaminated food, water, and alcoholic beverages, in particular wine. At the gastric level, Pb is transformed into a soluble compound which, when conveyed into the bloodstream, is the long-term cause of saturnism, intoxication with neurotoxic, nephrotoxic and hematopoietic effects, and with the neurological developmental delay of children. Pb is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a 2A class, possible carcinogenic to humans. In an opinion on possible health risks, CONTAM considered that cereals, vegetables, drinking water, and wine give a greater contribute to dietary exposure to Pb in Europe. Large quantities of wine, beer, and other alcoholic products drinking can increase daily Pb intake above the maximum permitted levels. The JECFA/WHO committee defined a Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) for lead of 25 µg/kg body weight for all age groups. The presence of lead in grapes, wines and other alcoholic products has been reported for many years and is influenced by a series of factors that characterize wineries (country of origin, different climatic conditions, grape cultivars, soil composition, environmental industrial emissions of lead, historical and present, motor vehicle exhausts gases, metal-based fungicides and insecticides, fertilizers and winemaking processes, including cellar equipment). The aim of this work was to detect the Pb content in fortified wines from central Italy, in particular from Abruzzo.

METHODS: The analysis was performed in ICP-MS. The wine samples were diluted ten times with HNO3 (2%) and analyzed in triplicate. The external standard method and the calibration solutions prepared in 2% ethanol/2% HNO3 were used for the quantification of Pb. The data obtained was analyzed using the ICP-MS ChemStation.

RESULTS: The results of a study conducted on the trace elements presence, including Pb, in Italian fortified wines agree with the literature data relating to the Pb content, which is lower than the limit allowed by current legislation, with the exception of a sample relating to the “Vino cotto”, of artisanal production.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results can contribute to the formation of a database to protect the consumers health. The wines Pb content is established by the Commission regulation (EU) 2015/1005 of 25 June 2015 which defines the maximum admitted value at 0.15 mg/L. The International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) in 2020 reduced the limit to 0.10 mg/L for wines and 0.15 mg/L for fortified wines.

DOI:

Publication date: September 15, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Angelo Cichelli

Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences – DiSMOB. “G. D’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara – Via dei Vestini, Chieti, Italy.,Laura CASORRI, Department of Technological Innovations and safety of plants, products and anthropic settlements (DIT) – National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL). Rome, Italy.  Ada CONSALVO Center for Advances Studies and Technologies (CAST) University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, Italy.  Marco DI LUIGI, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene – National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL) – Research Centre Monte Porzio Catone – Rome, Italy.  Massimo DI MARTINO, Ispettorato Centrale della tutela della Qualita’ e della Repressione Frodi dei prodotti agroalimentari (ICQRF). Pescara, Italy.  Barbara FICOCIELLO, Department of Technological Innovations and safety of plants, products and anthropic settlements (DIT) – National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL). Rome, Italy.  Eva MASCIARELLI, Department of Technological Innovations and safety of plants, products and anthropic settlements (DIT) – National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL). Rome, Italy.

Contact the author

Keywords

lead, fortified wine, maximum value, oiv

Citation

Related articles…

How distinctive are single vineyard Gewürztraminer musts and wines from Alto Adige (Italy) based on untargeted analysis, sensory profiling, and chemometric elaboration?

Vitis vinifera L. ‘Gewürztraminer’ is a historical grape variety of Alto Adige (Südtirol), Italy, which is widely grown in the area of Tramin an der Weinstraße, but is also grown globally. It produces highly aromatic wines that are strongly influenced by the terroir of the vineyard sites where they are grown. This study looked at musts and young wines from ‘Gewürztraminer’ grapes harvested in seven distinct vineyards near Tramin and then processed at Cantina di Termeno, minimizing winemaking protocol variability. Samples were profiled using bidimensional gas chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography coupled to electrochemical detection, and near-IR spectrometry. The data were subjected to Principle Component Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis. Sensory discriminant testing was undertaken using the sorting method with a semi-trained panel, and the data were processed using Multidimensional Scaling. Seven must/wine pairs could be distinguished based on their untargeted volatilome profiles and on sensory evaluation. As expected, there were greater differences in the volatile compounds between the wines than between the musts. The wines from vineyards 4 and 5 were nonetheless quite homogenous in terms of chemical and sensory analyses, as were the wines from vineyards 1 and 3. For the phenolic profile, differences were noted between the musts and wines of vineyards 2, 3, and 4, but the musts from vineyards 5 and 7 were similar. Sensory analysis showed the wines from vineyards 6 and 7 to be distinct from the rest. These results reinforce that the composition of ‘Gewürztraminer’ musts and wines is strongly determined by vineyard site, even in a small geographic area with high variability of the terroir (soil and microclimate), and that these differences are apparent in the flavours and aromas of the finished wines. Further confirmation would require a larger sample of wines, preferably from several vintages.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

Adaptability of grapevines to climate change: characterization of phenology and sugar accumulation of 50 varieties, under hot climate conditions

Climate is the major factor influencing the dynamics of the vegetative cycle and can determine the timing of phenological periods. Knowledge of the phenology of varieties, their chronological duration, and thermal requirements, allows not only for the better management of interventions in the vineyard, but also to predict the varieties’ behaviour in a scenario of climate change, giving the wine producer the possibility of selecting the grape varieties that are best adapted to the climatic conditions of a certain terroir. In 2014, Symington Family Estates, Vinhos, established two grape variety libraries in two different places with distinctive climate conditions (Douro Superior, and Cima Corgo), with the commitment of contributing to a deeper agronomic and oenological understanding of some grape varieties, in hot climate conditions. In these research vineyards are represented local varieties that are important in the regional and national viticulture, but also others that have over time been forgotten — as well as five international reference cultivars. From 2017 to 2021, phenological observations have been made three times a week, following a defined protocol, to determine the average dates of budbreak, flowering and veraison. With the climate data of each location, the thermal requirements of each variety and the chronological duration of each phase have been calculated. During maturation, berry samples have been gathered weekly to study the dynamics of sugar accumulation, between other parameters. The data was analysed applying phenological and sugar accumulation models available in literature. The results obtained show significant differences between the varieties over several parameters, from the chronological duration and thermal requirements to complete the various stages of development, to the differences between the two locations, confirming the influence of the climate on phenology and the stages of maturation, in these specific conditions.

Genotypic variability in root architectural traits and putative implications for water uptake in grafted grapevine

Root system architecture (RSA) is important for soil exploration and edaphic resources acquisition by the plant, and thus contributes largely to its productivity and adaptation to environmental stresses, particularly soil water deficit. In grafted grapevine, while the degree of drought tolerance induced by the rootstock has been well documented in the vineyard, information about the underlying physiological processes, particularly at the root level, is scarce, due to the inherent difficulties in observing large root systems in situ. The objectives of this study were to determine genetic differences in the root architectural traits and their relationships to water uptake in two Vitis rootstocks genotypes (RGM, 140Ru) differing in their adaptation to drought. Young rootstocks grafted upon the Riesling variety were transplanted into cylindrical tubes and in 2D rhizotrons under two conditions, well watered and moderate water stress. Root traits were analyzed by digital imaging and the amount of transpired water was measured gravimetrically twice a week. Root phenotyping after 30 days reveal substantial variation in RSA traits between genotypes despite similar total root mass; the drought-tolerant 140Ru showed higher root length density in the deep layer, while the drought-sensitive RGM was characterised by shallow-angled root system development with more basal roots and a larger proportion of fine roots in the upper half of the tube. Water deficit affected canopy size and shoot mass to a greater extent than root development and architectural-related traits for both 140Ru and RGM, suggesting vertical distribution of roots was controlled by genotype rather than plasticity to soil water regime. The deeper root system of 140Ru as compared to RGM correlated with greater daily water uptake and sustained stomata opening under water-limited conditions but had little effect on above-ground growth. Our results highlight that grapevine rootstocks have constitutively distinct RSA phenotypes and that, in the context of climate change, those that develop an extensive root network at depth may provide a desirable advantage to the plant in coping with reduced water resources.

Protected Designation of Origin (D.P.O.) Valdepeñas: classification and map of soils

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.